Legislature(2023 - 2024)DAVIS 106
04/27/2023 06:00 PM House WAYS & MEANS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB165 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 165 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 165-CHARTER SCHOOLS; CORRESPONDENCE PROGRAMS
6:03:54 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER announced that the only order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 165, "An Act relating to charter schools;
relating to correspondence study programs; and providing for an
effective date."
CHAIR CARPENTER stated that HB 165 is being introduced as a
committee bill. He pointed out that the House Special Committee
on Ways and Means has been tasked with finding ways to make
government more efficient, and during recent discussions it has
identified education as an important aspect of economic outcomes
in the state. He advised that improved education outcomes are
critical to Alaska's prosperity, arguing that excellent
education options would provide reasons for families to move to
the state. He stated that this would help grow the economy. He
concluded that the committee would continue to bring policy
options to help reduce costs and improve government
effectiveness.
6:05:30 PM
KENDRA BROUSSARD, Staff, Representative Ben Carpenter, on behalf
of the sponsor, the House Special Committee on Ways and Means,
of which Representative Carpenter serves as chair, presented the
sponsor statement [copy included in the committee packet], which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
HB 165 would allow Parents to have a greater choice in
their child's education.
Parents in several states can choose the best
education option for their child. That may be a
neighborhood public school for one child, but a
charter school or correspondence-type program for
another.
HB 165 would allow the state Board of Education to
charter schools anywhere in the state, and to direct a
state correspondence program. Currently, school
districts have the decision authority over the
existence of these entities.
Currently, correspondence study programs receive a
fraction of the funding than that of the neighborhood
public school. Alaska statutes require schools to meet
the same instructional standards, provide the same
level of curriculum, and meet the needs of students,
regardless if the student is receiving their education
from a physical school, or a home-based school. Under
Special Needs statutes, schools are required to
provide services including vocational education,
special education, gifted and talented, and
bilingual/bicultural education.
The current funding formula for education is heavily
weighted toward neighborhood public schools.
There are 29,118 students enrolled in charter or
correspondence schools in Alaska, or 23% of Alaska's
students. The 21,927 correspondence students are 16%
of total students in Alaska, but only account for 5.3%
of total funding. The current funding formula for a
correspondence student is 90% (0.9) of the BSA with no
additional multipliers. HB 165 would change that
formula to 150% (1.5) of the BSA. HB 165 also
allocates an 11 times multiplier for intensive needs
students.
HB 165 also directs school districts to allocate the
funds the district receives on behalf of each child in
a correspondence study program.
HB 165 allows parents of all income levels to
determine the most appropriate method of schooling for
their child. HB 165 is likely to incentivize more
parents to choose charter or correspondence programs
for their children, which will have an additional
benefit of saving the state money.
6:08:03 PM
MS. BROUSSARD, on behalf of the prime sponsor, the House Special
Committee on Ways and Means, of which Representative Carpenter
serves as chair, provided the sectional analysis [copy included
in the committee packet], which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Section 1
Creates a new section of law under charter schools
that allows the State Board of Education to establish
a charter school in a school district. The district
local school board will operate the charter under the
charter school law.
Section 2
Changes the allotment for correspondence schools to
the amount to the annual student allotment calculated
in Section 3 of this Act.
Section 3
Adds a new subsection to correspondence school law to
calculate student allotments for non-intensive needs
students and another for intensive needs students.
Section 4 and 5
Adds to the duties of the Department of Education to
offer and make available to any Alaskan through a
centralized office a correspondence study program if
required to do so by the State Board of Education.
Section 6
Adds to the duties of the State Board of Education
that the Board shall adopt regulations regarding
establishment of charter schools by the Board.
Section 7
Amends the state funding calculation for
correspondence program by adding together the results
of multiplying the ADM (student count) by 1.5 and
multiplying the correspondence intensive student count
by 11.
Section 8
Adds a new subsection of the calculation of the
calculation for state funding for correspondence study
by defining intensive services and correspondence
intensive student.
Section 9 and 10
Provide effective dates.
6:09:47 PM
LINDSEY CAUSER, Staff, Representative Jamie Allard, on behalf of
the sponsor, the House Special Committee on Ways and Means,
presented the PowerPoint, titled "HB 165 Charter Schools and
Correspondence Programs" [hardcopy included in the committee
packet]. She moved to slide 2 and said that Alaska's charter
school laws are the third most restrictive nationwide, and HB
165 would address this. She explained that the lack of multiple
authorizers is why these laws are seen as restrictive. She
moved to slide 3 and directed attention to the second bullet
point, which was the Alaska Policy Forum's recommendation that
correspondence students should also get average daily membership
(AADM) weights for special education of 1.2. She stated that HB
165 would increase this rate to 1.5. She explained that the 1.5
rate is being proposed because the state is only providing
correspondence funding of 75 percent of what brick-and-mortar
students receive. She added that this number is based on
savings accounts in other states. She pointed out that
correspondence students with intensive needs should also receive
weights to their allotment similar to intensive-needs students
in traditional district schools. She suggested an allotment
multiplier of at least 10, while HB 165 would propose a
multiplier of 11. She pointed out that brick-and-mortar schools
receive a 13 times multiplier.
6:12:24 PM
MS. CAUSER, in response to a committee question, stated that
"AADM" stands for "average daily membership." Moving to slide
4, she related that students in Alaska's charter schools perform
better than students enrolled in traditional public schools,
regardless of ethnicity, gender, or subgroup. She expressed the
opinion that charter and correspondence schools help provide
students with a better education. Moving to slide 5, she
explained that there are 105,526 students enrolled in
neighborhood public schools in Alaska, and 21,927 enrolled in
correspondence study programs. She stated that correspondence
study students are 16.5 percent of all students but account for
less than 5.3 percent of total funding. She moved to slide 6
and discussed the funding formula for the current Correspondence
School Allotment Program (CSAP), which multiplies the base
student allocation (BSA) of $5,960 by 0.9, and this equals
$5,364. She stated that the allocation to parents is $2,500,
while the remainder is going to the school district. She
explained that slide 7 shows the CASP funding formula in the
proposed legislation, which uses a 1.5 multiplier, resulting in
a BSA of $8,940. She pointed out that HB 165 would direct the
funding to the charter or correspondence school, not the school
district.
6:16:08 PM
MS. CAUSER moved to slide 8 and explained that a larger
allocation in the hands of parents to direct their children's
education could result in a significant increase in
correspondence school participation. She surmised that the more
participation in correspondence schools, the more the state
would save. She reiterated that an increase in allotments to
parents from CSAP would create more interest in correspondence
schools. She moved to slide 9 and advised that the bill's $72
million fiscal note is misleading because it would only take
7,335 students switching to a correspondence program to break
even. She posited that if 10,500 students switched, the state
would save $31.3 million per year. She stated that 10,500 was
the number of students who utilized correspondence programs
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Because of this, she deduced that
the parents are interested, and she suggested that with an
increase in funding more students would change to correspondence
programs.
6:19:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked if the Alaska Department of Education
and Early Development (DEED) is available, and whether it would
agree with the purported cost savings.
6:19:51 PM
DONALD ENOCH, Special Education Administrator, Department of
Education, shared that he is not involved with financing of this
type.
6:20:31 PM
ELWIN BLACKWELL, School Finance Manager, Department of Education
and Early Development, responded that he is unsure he could
speak to the numbers in question; however, he pointed out that
this is speculative, as it assumes students will move to
correspondence programs. He expressed uncertainty because the
numbers presented are speculative.
6:21:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD hypothetically stated that if 10,500
students switched from public schools to correspondence
programs, the state would then save $31 million annually.
MR. BLACKWELL expressed uncertainty because the numbers have not
yet been validated.
6:22:23 PM
MS. CAUSER moved to slide 10 which addressed charter schools in
Alaska. She explained that, depending on the location, public
charter schools may be another option available. She stated
that like traditional public schools, charter schools are free,
open, and usually have no requirements for entry. She explained
that what distinguishes charter schools is the schools have
extra freedom to innovate with learning methods and are
accountable for authorizing entities for results. Moving to
slide 11, she further elaborated that Alaska passed charter
school legislation in 1995 and currently has 31 charter schools,
serving more than 9,000 students. She said each school has a
charter explaining the school's purpose and the specific
community needs it serves. For example, a charter school may
offer a Spanish immersion program or a literacy-based
curriculum. If there are more families seeking admittance to a
charter school than there are seats, a lottery system is
typically used to determine admittance. She offered her
understanding that charter schools see more activity from the
student's parents than public schools.
6:23:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY shared that, as a parent of a child in a
charter school, it is required the parent participate.
6:24:15 PM
MS. CAUSER moved to slide 12 and explained that for the 2023
school year, there are 31 charter public schools serving 8,191
students in Alaska. Furthermore, charter schools in the state
have an average math proficiency score of 48 percent, versus the
public-school average of 33 percent. She added that charter
schools in the state have a reading proficiency score of 59
percent compared to the statewide average of 40 percent. On
slide 13, she pointed out that minority enrollment in the
state's charter schools is 35 percent of the student body, which
is less than the public school's 53 percent average minority
enrollment. She moved to slide 14 and explained that permitting
the creation of independent authorizers is one of the most
important components of a strong charter law. She said the data
shows states with multiple chartering authorities have almost
three and a half times more charter schools than states which
only allow local school board approval. Furthermore, about 78
percent of the nation's charter schools are in states with
multiple authorizers or a strong appeals process. She expressed
the opinion that states without multiple authorizers have
hostile environments for charter schools because charter schools
are viewed as competition, and school boards reject applications
not based on merit but based on politics. She continued that,
without objective oversight from multiple authorizers, charter
schools have no alternatives for approval, and so quality growth
is severely stunted. She advised that school board hostility
has prevented certain states from meeting growing demand for
school choice, such as Maryland, Tennessee, and Rhode Island.
6:27:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked how many charter school applications
have been denied in Alaska. He further asked for an example of
a charter school being denied because of politics.
MS. CAUSER stated she would follow up with an answer after the
meeting.
6:28:04 PM
MS. CAUSER moved to slide 15 and addressed alternative
authorizers. She said that 40 states and the District of
Columbia now have charter schools. Of these, 14 states have one
or more types of alternative charter authorizers. The other 27
states use a combination of local, regional, and state board
authorizers. She said that, as of January 2007, 6 states and
the District of Columbia had created separate state-level
chartering boards, and she listed the states. She explained
that, generally, the members of these state-level commissions or
boards are appointed by one or more public officials; however,
in some states the appointees must represent certain
constituencies or possess expertise. In all cases, the sole
purpose is to review, approve, and oversee charter schools
within the state.
6:29:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH pointed out that slide 4 relates that
students in Alaska's charter schools perform better on testing
than students enrolled in the traditional public schools. He
offered his understanding that 85 percent of traditional brick-
and-mortar public school students are tested. He asked for the
percentage of charter school students who are tested.
MS. CAUSER stated that the information on the slide is from the
Alaska Policy Forum; therefore, she expressed uncertainty.
6:31:15 PM
SARAH MONTALBANO, Education Policy Analyst, Alaska Policy Forum,
stated that the forum has a public records request for
participation rates. She said correspondence students have a
low rate of testing compared to public school students.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH expressed the understanding that when
correspondence students take the test, only about 15 percent of
the students are tested.
MS. MONTALBANO concurred.
6:32:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD expressed the opinion that the tests given
are political, skewed, and agenda driven. She said that, as a
parent, she has pulled her children out of testing because it is
unnecessary. She added that frequent testing is not relevant in
high school.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH interjected, stating that the percentage of
students taking the tests is being discussed, not test scores.
He argued that there is a focus on accountability in public
schools; however, in reference to correspondence schools, he
expressed uncertainty about accountability because a low
percentage of correspondence students take the test.
6:34:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned the importance of how many
students take the test. He posited that if 15 percent of the
charter school students take a test, and 100 percent of the
brick-and-mortar schools take the test, there would still be a
bell curve. He persisted that the number of students taking the
test is irrelevant, as the committee is looking for a cross
section. He said if it could be proved that a cross section was
hand picked by the teacher in order to skew the curve, this
would be a different matter.
6:35:55 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER pointed out that charter schools are still
considered public schools; therefore, the testing requirements
are the same throughout. He suggested that a test with a larger
sample size would be considered more trustworthy.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH said the distinction between charter and
correspondence schools is charter schools have a testing
requirement for students, while only 15 percent of
correspondence school students take the tests.
CHAIR CARPENTER responded that both charter and brick-and-mortar
schools have the same testing requirements, but both have an
allowance concerning participation in testing. He hypothesized
that the parents, who are already required to be an active part
of the education, are the ones pulling the students [from
testing] at a higher rate.
6:38:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH laid out three categories: traditional non-
charter public schools, charter schools, and correspondence
schools.
6:39:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD shared that she has missed deadlines to
opt out her child for tests in the public school, whereas the
test notification is better at the charter school. She said
that, if there was an option to opt in to testing, there would
be an increase in parents wanting to see the students assessed.
She emphasized that parents are taking their children to
correspondence schools because there a child's education would
be better directed.
CHAIR CARPENTER commented that the conversation is not about
picking one type of school over another, as HB 165 addresses
options for parents and equity in funding.
6:41:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE opined that the conversation boils down to
free market economy, and HB 165 would force real academic
accountability over schools collecting test scores every year.
He referenced the Nickle Project which shows the amount every
state spends in education per child. He recounted that Wasilla
High School spends $14,000 per student, in comparison to a
typical correspondence school, which is about $5,000. He
expressed the opinion that the difference in the spending is
because the school districts are making money from the
correspondence schools.
6:43:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY referred to slide 7 and pointed out that the
$8,940 figure is larger than $2,500. He related a story of a
family who "loved" correspondence schools and had used the money
received from CSAP to take a family trip to Disney World. He
asked if there is accountability on how parents are using the
money.
6:44:36 PM
DEBORAH RIDDLE, Division Operations Manager, Innovation and
Education Excellence, Department of Education and Early
Development, responded that, as far as accountability, there are
reports as to how the funding is spent. She deferred to Mr.
Blackwell.
6:45:23 PM
MR. BLACKWELL answered that school districts review the
expenditures. He offered his understanding on how the programs
function: an allotment is set aside for the student;
expenditures, like curriculum, are sent to the school district
and the correspondence program; and the program purchases the
items and ships the items to the parent. He said there are some
instances where a parent might purchase a service and then seek
reimbursement from the program; however, any purchases must fit
within the student's individual learning plan. He said DEED
does not collect the correspondence program data separately
because it is included with the educational expenditures.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked that, if a parent had three kids in
elementary school, would an allotment of $27,000 be enough to
cover curricular costs.
MR. BLACKWELL responded that the curriculum could be purchased
but only a little allotment would be left over. He advised that
if the parent chooses to reuse curriculum, the allotments would
be more. He stated that he cannot speak to the sufficiency of
the current allotment.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY acknowledged that the committee might not
view standardized tests as a good indicator; however, there
should be some form of accountability. He continued that some
homeschooling parents are excellent, and some are not. For the
excellent ones, he suggested there should be an award in the
form of a larger allocation. Conversely, the parent should have
the allocation taken away if the parent is not teaching the
child. He said his concern is a child who is benefitting from
public school being taken out and put in a correspondence
program so the parent can take the allocation and purchase non-
education related items, like a car. He asked for assurance
this scenario would not happen.
MR. BLACKWELL responded, "This is a little outside my
wheelhouse." He reiterated that expenditures are processed
through school district business offices, who review the
expenses. Furthermore, the programs require work samples to
show progress is being made.
6:50:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD suggested that one could hire a teacher by
using the correspondence program allocation, but pointed out
that the allocation itself may not be able to pay for this. She
voiced the opinion that taking away the taxpayers' right to use
their funds would be like taking away parental rights;
therefore, HB 165 would give all competition to parents,
schools, and districts.
6:51:57 PM
MS. CAUSER pointed out that there had been a committee
presentation from a charter school which covered the online
system for parents. The system allows parents to see their fund
balance and enter receipts. She offered her understanding that
whatever funds the parents did not use would be rolled over into
the next year.
6:53:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE, in response to Representative Gray,
addressed the question which compared the funding to an account
which could only be used for certain items and offered that in
Arizona the items include tuition at a qualified school,
textbooks, tutoring services, curriculum materials, and
standardized testing. He said the allotments are regulated and
receipts must be shown. He expressed uncertainty about the
veracity of the claim where the family used the funds to go to
Disney World. If this is correct, considering the Arizona
allotment program, this may be breaking the law.
CHAIR CARPENTER added that Alaska has had correspondence
programs for years and has developed its own regulations which
are working. He said that while there may be instances of
families failing in the correspondence program, there are also
families not succeeding in all programs.
6:55:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked if there is an Alaska schools'
"checkbook" where schools report expenditures.
MR. BLACKWELL answered there is no checkbook, and the data
shared with DEED is from the annual audit conducted on school
districts. Furthermore, DEED does not receive detailed
information from school districts.
6:56:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY acknowledged that Interior Distance
Education of Alaska (IDEA) is the biggest correspondence program
based in the Gelena City School District, with 6,000 students
enrolled. He offered the understanding that the allotment goes
to the school district, and then it is allotted to the program.
He expressed the concern that the allotment may be "eaten up" by
the cost of the administrators.
MS. CAUSER responded that the allotment for each student under
CSAP is $5,960, with the parents receiving an average of $2,500.
She stated that, per the proposed legislation, the allotted
$8,940 would go to the correspondence program, so the overhead
would be removed, and more funding would go to the parents. She
pointed out that school districts are not required to give any
amount to the correspondence school.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked what would stop the correspondence
school from hiring additional administrators.
MS. CAUSER said that correspondence schools are in competition
with each other, and, hypothetically, if one school were to only
provide 80 percent of the allotted amount, while the other is
offering 90 percent, the person has the choice of which school
to go to. She said the competition would prevent the allotments
being turned into overhead.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY said that $9,000 is more than the current
BSA. He expressed the opinion that the state is sending the
message parents would do a better job teaching than a
credentialed, experienced teacher. He argued that a teacher's
credentials and experience mean something.
7:00:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD reminded members that correspondence
school programs do not receive federal or grant funding. She
referred to a brief provided to the House Education Standing
Committee which explains the small amount each district
receives. She advised that 8,000 third graders out of 10,000 do
not read proficiently. She expressed the opinion that there are
not enough educators teaching students to read at proficient
levels and argued not everybody who receives a teaching degree
should be a teacher. She expressed support for all teachers.
7:02:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH asked how correspondence schools meet
federal mandates for special education services. He offered the
example that the IDEA program has a ratio of 80 special
education students to one special education teacher.
CHAIR CARPENTER responded that funds normally allotted to brick-
and-mortar students for special education are not coming to
correspondence students at all. He said, "I think that's the
reality."
7:04:33 PM
MS. MONTALBANO explained that the correspondence allotment
funding multiplier is 0.9 across the board, and if the student
is in public school, then the multiplier is 0.13. She said that
if charter students could qualify this would allow their needs
to be met by the private market. She noted that for intensive-
needs funding in the district, it is not entirely guaranteed the
money would follow the student. She suggested that if the
funding were allotted to the correspondence student themselves,
then the parents would have more control over how the child's
needs are met.
MR. BLACKWELL stated that an intensive-needs student in a
correspondence program would receive a times 13 multiplier. If
the student has special needs but does not qualify for intensive
needs, then there is no multiplier. He deferred the explanation
of intensive-needs services to Mr. Enoch.
7:06:53 PM
MR. ENOCH said that the continuum of placement for school
districts is complicated, as not all schools have the same
resources, and not all placements in each school district have
the same resources. He stated that in order to offer the
student a free appropriate public education, the district may
have to offer a placement which works with the disability.
Teaching a student to read brail, for example, would be best
done in the district with a brail teacher because it is hands on
and does not work well in a video conference setting. He
explained that if a parent chooses to enroll a child in a
correspondence program where such services are not available,
then the district would not be liable for not providing services
in an environment which is the parent's choice. He stated that
such occurrences are rare in correspondence programs, and
typically the students who are in these programs are with
parents who have been given training, oversight, and supervision
with a certified special education teacher.
7:09:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH shared that he has received letters from
school districts. For example, the Craig City School District
wrote that HB 165 could financially destroy all statewide
correspondence programs, while the Chugach School District
related that HB 165 would force many programs, like the FOCUS
homeschool program, to shut down. He questioned these concerns.
CHAIR CARPENTER stated that representatives of the school
districts are not online to speak to the letters. He added that
he will not ask DEED staff to respond as there is no one present
to answer the concerns in the letters.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH stressed that he would like to see the
concerns addressed, if possible.
CHAIR CARPENTER said he concurs in wanting to know why these
districts oppose HB 165.
7:11:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE commented that he views the letters as
public testimony; therefore, DEED is not required to answer the
questions.
7:12:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY posited that if there were 10,000 public
school students who transferred over to correspondence schools,
he still would not understand where the extra 50 percent in
funding comes from. He expressed concern that, while the money
may leave with the students, the districts would still have an
educational infrastructure and staff to maintain. He said there
are those who say the [schools deserve the loss of funding and
students] because of the "bad job" they do, but others argue if
funding is increased then the schools would do a better job. He
surmised that it comes down to one's own political "bent."
CHAIR CARPENTER expressed the intention to reach out to
districts who wrote the letters.
7:14:20 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER announced that HB 165 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB0165A.PDF |
HW&M 4/27/2023 6:00:00 PM |
HB 165 |
| HB 165 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HW&M 4/27/2023 6:00:00 PM |
HB 165 |
| HB 165 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HW&M 4/27/2023 6:00:00 PM |
HB 165 |
| HB 165-EED-FP-4-21-23 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HW&M 4/27/2023 6:00:00 PM |
HB 165 |
| HB 165-EED-SSA-4-21-23 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HW&M 4/27/2023 6:00:00 PM |
HB 165 |
| HB 165-EED-FP-4-21-23 DEED Fiscal Note.pdf |
HW&M 4/27/2023 6:00:00 PM |
HB 165 |
| HB 165 Charter Schools and Correspondence Programs Presentation.pdf |
HW&M 4/27/2023 6:00:00 PM |
HB 165 |